Freshly minted college graduates who majored in fields like
architecture, business, computers, statistics, engineering
and health can expect to start jobs where they earn more than
high school graduates with decades of experience.
Maybe, possibly, doubtfully true for architecture, or health, but I don't believe for a second that is true in business, computers, statistics, or engineering.
That’s the finding of a new report from Georgetown University‘s Center
on Education and the Workforce...
Oh, I get it, this is marketing material. Keep Dreaming.
I don't see anything that supports the hypothesis in the title. There's no indication of what these people who have "decades of experience" are earning, on the graph.
And going by those numbers, it appears they are way off.
Judging by the salaries I know of a team I worked with recently, only 2-3 years of experience (and no degree) earns %30-%40 more than the degree starting amount. This implies you would be better off with 3 years of experience and no degree than spending 4 years getting a degree. Or even 3 years.
For those with even more experience the salaries ranged from twice to %150 of the starting income of recent college graduates.
Even a graduate degree doesn't seem to pay by these numbers.
Of course I'm eyeballing it with a relatively small sample-- but they aren't providing any statistically significant numbers for the experienced incomes.
it's definitely not true that a degree in computer science will get you a higher starting amount than a person with even 1 year of industry experience.
However, I have always been curious to see when/if the degree holders catch up- or if they surpass their non-degree holding brethren.
Personally, I do not hold any formal education- and while working in London after 1 year I managed to get a "Senior Sysadmin" level salary.. but could I earn more with a formal education?
without a degree I'd expect my salary to do this kind of thing:
75k | X
65k | X
55k | X
45k | X
20k |X__________
0 4 8 12 16
with a degree, could it be more like:
120k| X
100k| X
75k |
65k | X
55k | X
45k |
20k |X__________
0 4 8 12 16
(these are British salaries, before someone mentions that's very low for american/USD salaries)
Right? I figure by investing years of practice into yourself, you're sending a very clear message that at least you believe yourself to be a valuable asset. I've seen smart people come to workplaces but, without any zest or vision, they wind up doing only the bare minimum all the time.
Am I not reading the diagram correctly? In the diagram the dark colors (more experience) are always higher than the corresponding light colors. That says experience is worth more than a fresh degree. What am I missing? Maybe it's a grammar thing, English is not my native language.
I am not sure if they are comparing High School graduates in general with those college graduates who ended up getting a BS in CS or if it is adjusted for IQ, field (high school graduates working in the CS field), etc
The original headline is
"A New Degree in Architecture, Computers or Health Is Worth More Than Decades of Job Experience" - in which the coma makes sense.
I don't think it's misplaced. As far as I know, you can use it (or at least it's used) in English as a shorter way to say 'and', especially for headlines.
I know complaining about journalism is a tired old drum, but..
This combination of "reports" press releases and journalism that cherry picks and tortures statistics is scientism of the worst kind.
Where is cause and where is effect effect? What other things have interlinked causal relationships with these things? These realities are complicated and trying to boil it down to this college degree earns people this much is just not really the way reality works.
A 25 year old with a solid academic background in statistics, big data & business from name brand Universities is likely to be optimizing his earning potential. He's very likely to be getting knowledgable advice, assistance and socialization to this end from parents. This is not a randomized experience. The got into the degree. They passed it. They decided to get into it. Causation runs both ways, in loops, in zigzags.
For a high school graduate with decades of experience… What circumstances yield 35 year olds without any tertiary education in 2015? The starting point is different, the trajectory is different. It's complex.
Coming from a non American who quite like americans I would also point out that there are many uniquely american blind spots here. One is the mercantile approach to education. Universities can proudly and flagrantly advertise their prestige with prices and viscera versa.
First, the American student is a consumer and investor. This is kind of cool and useful in that it forces people to consider realities like the market demand for graduates of a degree. But it also generates the kind of flat, dull and incorrect analysis where a degree is going to be causally linked to a salary, justifying the enormous (and often unnecessary) costs. Universities need this to justify what they charge and students need to justify their spend.
Second, I think Americans have a very weird relationship with the concepts and vocabulary of socialism. Socialism (followed closely and arguably by Liberal Capitalism) was probably the most influentially socio-economic-political movement of the 20th century. The ideas influence the US no less than anywhere. But Americans have a weird relationship with them.
At the centre of it all is the aversion to considering anything from the lens of class.
Universities are now and have always been, central to class issues. They are where class is established. They are instruments of class mobility, class immobility. They are places where class culture is consolidated.
I would guess that class is a major determining factor in earning potential, and that a lot of the mechanics of this are via universities.
When you consider some cluster of college graduates and compare them to high school graduates with 10 years experience, you are comparing samples of class clusters.
